Miiiiiiiiiiiiaigiiiig 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DDDDbmflTbl 










4 










'• ^^ / ^iOfA^o ^^ ^^ ^i 









^* rs ^ « 



4 o^ 













L>-^ 









y» 























SPEECH 



r " :; 



DELIVERED BY 



COL. W. E. MOREISOI, 



AT EDWARDSVILLE, MADISON COUNTY, ILL., 



BER 13, 186 3, 









LOUIS: 

C , PRINTERS AND BINDERS. 

X 8 6 3. 



."5 



Edwabdsville, October 14, 1863. 



Col. Wm. R. Morrison. 



Dear Sir: — Your friends of Edwardsville, desirous of manifesting their appre- 
ciation of the able and statesmanlike Speech delivered by you in the Court-house 
of Edwardsville on the evening of Thursday, the 13th inst., and in order to have 
the principles set forth therein generally propagated, we respectfully solicit at your 
earliest convenience a publication of the same. 



E. J. DORSET, 
JAMES OLIVE, 
W. E. WUEELER, 
WM. T. BROWN, 
JAS. CHAPMAN, 
GEO. B. BURNETT, 
WM. S. HELM, 



HOLE. WniTTINGTON, 

" NRY C. GERKE, 



SPEECH OF COL. WM. R. MORRISON. 



Necessity for Free Discussion. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : Some of your 
citizens have expressed a desire to hear my 
viewsj which I was prevented by illness from 
expressing on the occasion of your late mass 
meeting, and which are only of any import- 
ance because of the trust you have so gen- 
erously confided to me. 

Our Government is involved in two seem- 
ingly "irrepressible conflicts" — one with 
armed treason and secession; the other 
with an illimitable, indescribable " milita- 
ry necessity." In both these conflicts we — 
the Democratic party — are for the Govern- 
ment and against its assailants. While the 
Administration, its adherents and allies, 
may be with us against armed treason and 
secession, they are against us and for this 
military necessity, alike dangerous to the 
Government ; so that, between us and our 
political opponents there is another conflict, 
and altogether we have some strife and 
more confusion in the land. Believing, as 
we do, that our institutions are founded in 
principles of truth and justice unchangea- 
ble ; that the people, the source of power, 
who make and unmake Administrations and 
Governments, are capable of comprehend- 
ing and appreciating the worth of these in- 
stitutions, we are not without hope of their 
ultimate triumph. That they may triumph, 
they must be understood ; that they may be 
understood, they must be canvassed and 
discussed. If, in these discussions, we shall 
say aught which does not support the ef- 
forts of the Administration, and which is 
not warranted in fact, while wo yet have 
the press and speech unabridged the means 
of our detection and exposure are ever at 
hand ; if, however, we speak but the truth, 
the truth and our institutions founded there- 
in must bo maintained j they must live, 



though the Administration and its puny ef- 
forts shall perish and be forgotten. Nor 
will we, if we are men and value our liber- 
ties, be deterred from this discussion by the 
venal cry of "Copperhead," "rebel sym- 
pathizer," "traitor," coming, as it does, 
from those who traffic in the misfortunes of 
the country and the blood of its children ; 
nor again by an only noisy patriotism which 
so often compares the country in its im- 
perilled condition to a house on fire, which 
must be "put out" before an inquiry is 
made as to who are the responsible villains. 
The gracious postponement of the inquiry, 
while the torch of treason consumes the 
" house," or the wicked double purpose of 
a faithless Administration removes its 
foundation rocks and secures its destruc- 
tion, is at least an admission that others 
than those we are fighting have unclean 
hands ; and, in the light of events of the 
last three years, who will not be convinced 
that, in this as in other great conflagrations, 
some of those who would have us believe 
them most in earnest "putting out," are in 
concert with those who are extending the 
fire for purposes of riot and plunder. 
Our System of Government. 
Our ancestors, who, at great cost, secured 
their independence from the parent country ; 
and who gave us this good Government, said, 
"in order to form a more perfect Union, 
establish justice, insure domestic tranquil- 
lity, provide for the common defence, pro- 
mote the general welfare, and secure the 
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our 
posterity," they made the Constitution, and 
in which they conferred upon the agents of 
the people, the officers for the time charged 
with the administration of the Government 
in its several departments, power to do cer- 
tain things to attain these high purposes. 



Among others so conferred, was the power 
to " provide for calling forth the militia to 
execute the laws of the Union, suppress in- 
surrections, and repel invasion." " To de- 
clare war," " to raise and suppart armies," 
to suspend " the privilege of the writ of 
habeas corpus when, in cases of rebellion 
or invasion, the public safety may require 
it." *' To regulate commerce with foreign 
nations and among the several States." 
For the attainment of the same purposes, 
and in the same instrument, (the Constitu- 
tion,) in which our fathers gave to these 
agents of the people (the President and 
other ofi&cers) these powers, the power to 
do certain other things was denied to them 
under all circumstances whatsoever. Among 
the powers so denied was that of "abridg- 
ing freedom of speech, or of the press," by 
these officers ; " no person shall be held to 
answer for a capital or otherwise infamous 
crime, unless on the presentment of a grand 
jury, except in cases arising in the land or 
naval forces, or in the militia;" " nor be 
deprived of life, liberty or property without 
due process of law." "No attainder of 
treason shall work corruption of blood, or 
forfeiture, except during the life of the per- 
son attainted;" and "in all criminal pros- 
ecutions the accused shall enjoy the right 
to a speedy andpuftWc trial by an impartial 
jury of the State and district ivherein the 
crime shall have been committed." And, 
by thus denying the exercise of these pow- 
ers, and conferring the exercise of those 
other powers, did these great men provide 
us with a Constitution, which, together with 
the laws made in pursuance threof, and 
treaties made under the authority of the 
United States, was declared to be the su- 
preme law of the land. It is a system of 
government embodying the will of the peo- 
ple. Whatever we may call it — whether 
Constitution, Government, supreme law of 
the land — it is not Mr. Lincoln. If we 
would continue in its enjoyment, we must 
preserve the Union of these States, with 
their equal rights unimpaired, because 
these constitute the very body of the sys- 
trm ; to do which, we must maintain the 
Constitution, the bond of union, without 
which no union remains. To protect and 



defend this Constitution, these several pow- 
ers conferred and powers denied must be 
respected and obeyed, they being the prin- 
ciples laid down, or means provided, for 
the protection of our rights and liberties ; 
the rules of action, the several parts making 
up in the whole the Constitution, which has 
no existence when these its several parts 
are destroyed. Whatever dangers now 
threaten us, come of disobedience to this 
supreme law, and may be averted by a re- 
turn to, and sacred observance of, the du- 
ties it enjoins by all those whose supreme 
law it is. Take from the citizen the rights 
guarantied in this supreme law and how 
much of liberty yet remains to him? In 
what else do our liberties consist than in 
the rights secured by these several powers 
conferred and denied ? We went to war 
with the rebels because they struck at the 
more perfect union, and thereby made war 
on the Constitution in one of its most vital 
points, without which Constitution no Un- 
ion exists against which to rebel. The Con- 
stitution overthrown, and the Southern 
States are no more a part of the Union — no 
more a part of our country — than is Canada 
a part of our Union, a part of our country. 
The Constitution overthrown, and we have 
no * lawful rights;* no duty to perform in 
the South, because without it we have 
nothing thea(against which the South is 
doing any wrong. Then, whoever, under 
any pretext, setjS the Constitution aside, in 
any of its provisions, are aiding and abet- 
ting Jeff. Davis in working out our nation- 
al ruin. The blessings of liberty, secured 
to us through its provisions, are none the 
less effectually lost to us if the Constitu- 
tion shall be stricken down by Northern 
madmen than if it fall by Southern traitors. 
When this *' more perfect Union" was 
threatened by the treasonable machinations 
of bold, bad Southern men — first seriously 
threatened, after it had been unfortunately 
determined to confide it to the keeping of 
the now most loyal party — we no longer re- 
membered past purty differences. We put 
aside all inquiries as to the blame which 
did justly belong to Abolition zealots, who 
built upon God's altar an unhallowed sec- 
tional strife, and those who, for base par- 



tis.an purposes, united -with them, thus giv- 
ing a pretext for this monstrous infamy. 
Our people united to ward off the danger 
threatening alike to all. All that was ask- 
ed, and more, was given, in men and mon- 
ey, by both our own State and the Nation- 
al Legislature. Now, unfortunately, crim- 
ination and strife have taken the place of 
concert and unanimity ; and are we, who 
have been true, or they who have been 
false to the rules of action which produced 
this unanimity and concert, responsible 
that they no longer exist ? Who are to bear 
the blame that the Union is not yet saved ? 
Certainly not the people who have given 
all, and more than wts asked by its pecu- 
liar friends, for its preservation. 

Bad faith of the Administration and its 
abuse of power. 

His party elected Mr. Lincoln because he 
was unfriendly to slavery as it existed in the 
Southern States, and against which he had 
made threats. These threats slavery feared 
he would attempt unlawfully to execute when 
he had been elected, and it demanded 
guarantees ; it asked of Mr. Lincoln and 
his party who had made threats, a bond, 
to keep the peace — not to violate the law. 
We believed the public peace should be se- 
cured by giving the bond, and to this end 
numerous propositions were proposed in 
Congress to protect the South from real or 
imaginary dangers : one by Mr. Critten- 
den, another by Mr. Douglas, who said, 
'' the South would take my proposition if 
the Republicans would agree to it." They 
would not agree to it ; we know the conse- 
quences — rather, we know the beginning 
of the end. When they could have secured 
an honorable adjustment, they had not the 
manliness to do it; and when it was too 
late, the Administration and its friends 
became frightened in their turn. To se- 
cure the co-operation of the Democratic 
party, which had but little faith in the hon- 
esty and law-abiding purpose of this loyal 
party, they seemingly abandoned the poli- 
cy which secured their political triumph, 
and organized Territories leaving the vex- 
ed question of slavery to be settled by the 
people interested. They promised to re 



deem their pledges, made in the Chicago 
platform, of economy, and in favor of "the 
maintenance of the rights of the States, 
and especially the right of each State to 
order and control its own domestic insti- 
tutions according to its own judgment ex- 
clusively." They officially declared in 
Congress their purpose, in the prosecution 
of the war, to be in accordance with the 
law and the constitution, by the adoption 
of the Crittenden resolution. They declar- 
ed in the same way, substantially, of their 
power and purposes in relation to slavery 
what Mr. Lincoln said in his inaugural ad- 
dress : " I declare that 1 have no purpose, 
directly or indirectly, to interfere with the 
institution of slavery in the States where 
it exists ; that I believe I have no lawful 
right to do so, and have no inclination to 
do so." These declarations accomplished 
the purpose for which they were made. The 
Democratic party believed them; the peo- 
ple of all parties believed them, and were 
united in their determination to maintain 
these declared and lawful purposes. 

Drunk of temporary success, and with it 
power and plunder, the Administration was 
false alike to its pledges and its trusts. 
When by our victories at Forts Henry and 
Donelson we were enabled to give the peo- 
ple of West Tennessee the protection of the 
national flag an-^uthority, against which 
many of them had done no wrong, the Ad- 
ministration gave them instead, as a Union 
saving offering, a scheme of confiscation 
which violates all the salutary provisions 
of our organic law to which I have refer- 
red, and which provide that "no attainder 
of treason shall work a forfeiture except 
during the life of the person attainted," 
and then only after conviction, with the 
right of trial by jury, and right to due pro- 
cess of law respected. By this scheme, 
without a trial or conviction, the property 
is taken — not, as the constitution provides, 
during the life of the guilty, but taken ab- 
solutely and forever, and the crimes of 
guilty men thus visited upon innocent wo- 
men and children. Then for the first time 
men learned in the principles and safe- 
guards which protect our liberties became 
alarmed at the blow thus inflicted, not 



upon the guilty, but upon the supreme law 
of the land, the only protection for the in- 
nocent; and men not so learned, but who 
are devoted to the institutions of their fa- 
thers, began to inquire if other men, what- 
ever may be their crimes, are denied such 
rights as they have not yet forfeited, how 
long shall we retain our rights ? They be- 
gan to inquire if these were the measures 
which were to arouse that " latent Union 
sentiment," and bring back the people of 
the South to the performance of such du- 
ties of the citizen as are necessary to pre- 
serve the Union. 

When the rebel flag flaunted in sight of 
the Capitol, and when it is said the pickets 
had to be doubled to enable the " Govern- 
ment" to sleep sound, these country loving 
people, who had resolved at Chicago that 
they must be put in power to save the peo- 
ple's money, purchased, without the con- 
sent of the owners or the people, the slaves 
in the District of Columbia, fixing the price 
of each at three hundred dollars, the value 
placed upon the life of a poor white man in 
the conscription bill. Then the people be- 
gan to inquire who was to pay for these 
negroes, and what their freedom had to do 
with saving the Union. Having declared 
as a part of their political faith, to secure 
power, that each State should control its 
own institutions and that its rights should 
be kept inviolate, and with that provision of 
the constitution which says "no new State 
shall be formed or erected within the ju- 
risdiction of any other State without the 
consent of the Legislature of the State con- 
cerned," constituting part of the law they 
have sworn to obey, — the President and 
Congress who are fighting — no, who are 
making other people fight — to uphold the 
law of the land, did for Old Virginia, 
which gave Illinois to the Union, what Jeff. 
Davis would do for the Union — they cut it 
in two; one of their leaders (Mr. Stephens 
of Pennsylvania) declaring that they did 
so without warrant in the constitution. 
Then men began to inquire, if the Presi- 
dent and Congress may divide a State with- 
out warrant in the constitution, why may 
not the Union be divided in the same way ? 
If we fight Jeff. Davie for offering to di- 



vide the Union, shall we be astonished that 
Virginians fight us for dividing Virginia? 

Foolishly supposing he had men enough 
to lay waste the Southern States ; false to 
the pledge in his inaugural, that he had 
"no purpose to interfere with the institu- 
tion of slavery where it exists and that he 
had no lawful right to do so," — the Presi- 
dent issued his emancipation proclamation, 
striking down, as he claims forever, prop- 
erty in millions of slaves, not excepting 
those of loyal men, of women, of children — 
no, not even those of Mr. Douglas' chil- 
dren. If the President had "no lawful 
right to do so" at his inauguration, when 
and where did he get that lawful right ? 
If he may do what he has no lawful right 
to do, why may not other men do what 
they have no lawful right to do ? Why 
may not Jeff. Davis divide the Union with 
no lawful right to do so ? 

We are told by Mr. Lincoln and his at- 
torneys, in justification of this act, a hun- 
dred days' notice was given Jeff. Davis, 
that if he did not "avert" it by ceasing his 
attempts to destroy the Union, ceasing to 
do what he had no lawful right to do, that 
our President would do what he had no 
" lawful right to do ;" he would do that in 
fear of which the Southern people had 
been induced to commit treason ; he would 
divide the people of the North by disclos- 
ing his unlawful purpose ; he would unite 
the people of the South by adding their 
interests to their prejudices and passions ; 
that is to say, our President would help 
Jeff. Davis in his work in law-breaking, 
unless it should be discontinued in one 
hundred days. And because Jeff. Davis 
did not "avert" it, Mr. Lincoln is to be ex- 
cused for faith unkept and laws violated. 
Again they tell us that Mr. Lincoln, Presi- 
dent, declared he had no lawful right and 
no purpose to interfere with slavery ; while 
Mr. Lincoln, Commander in Chief, issued 
the proclamation, who had the lawful right . 
that therefore no pledge is unkept, no law 
violated. But Mr. Seward, in his corres- 
pondence with Mr. Dayton at the French 
court, after war was inaugurated and Mr. 
Lincoln might do what is lawful for the 
Commander in Chief to do, says : " the new 



President, as well as the citizens through 
whose suffrages he has come into the ad- 
ministration, has always repudiated all de- 
signs whatever and wherever imputed to 
them and him of disturbing the system of 
slavery as it is existing under the Consti- 
tution and laws. That any such effort on 
his part would be unconstitutional, and all 
his actions in that direction would be pre- 
vented by the judicial authority even 
though they were assented to by Congress 
and the people." If Mr. Seward has not 
settled the question — speaking for Mr. Lin- 
coln as he does — suppose that, without any 
rebellion by the Southern people, he as 
Commander in Chief had issued his procla- 
mation declaring their slaves free, who, 
then, would have claimed the act to have 
been consistent with the supreme law of 
the land ? Gov. Aikin of South Carolina, 
reported in prison for bearing true alle- 
giance to the United States, owns a thou- 
sand slaves, many thousands are owned by 
widows and children, some by Mr. Doug- 
las' children. Gov. Aikin or other loyal 
men have made no war ; these women and 
children have made no war, no rebellion ; 
they have done no act to deprive them of 
any rights under the Constitution ; the in- 
valid acts of secession cannot change their 
relations to the Government of the United 
States, to which they owe paramount alle- 
giance. We are fighting to maintain the 
same Constitution we had before the war : 
then how it is that, what was before the 
war unconstitutional as to them and is now 
not unconstitutional while their relations 
remain the same to that instrument, is a 
proposition which I could not comprehend • 
and when the proclamation made its ap- 
pearance, I entered my protest against the 
filthy thing. 

Mr. Hale, a loyal Republican Senator, 
said in the Senate : 

" I declare it on my responsibility as a 
Senator of the United States, that the lib- 
erties of this country are in greater dan- 
ger to-day, from the corruptions and pro- 
fligacy practised in the various departments 
of this Government, than they are from the 
open enemy in the field." 

If, as Mr. Hale says, the greatest danger 
to our liberties is from the corruptions of 



loyal men calling themselves the only 
friends of the Government, shall it con- 
tinue without complaint ? Shall we fight 
those doing least, and not be allowed to 
complain of those doing most to destroy 
our liberties ? Mr. Senator Chandler, of 
blood-letting notoriety, said to his brother 
Republican Senators : 

"The Senate have deliberately voted to 
take from two to three hundred million 
dollars out of the Treasury of the United 
States, and put it into the hands of these 
thieves and robbers." 

Then the people began to inquire if thia 
too was saving the Union ? If it was, they 
desired to know how many millions more 
the thieves and robbers wanted, to make 
the Union quite safe. When that can be 
ascertained, I am in favor of giving them 
the millions of dollars to save the men. 

Mr. Dawes, whose loyalty will not be 
doubted, (he represented a district in Mas- 
sachusetts,) said : " That somebody has 
plundered the public Treasury well nigh as 
much in that single year as current yearly 
expenses of the Government during the ad- 
ministration which the people hurled from 
power because of its corruptions." Then 
people began to think seriously of sending 
that " somebody," who could beat " Old 
Buck's" administration, "plundering," 
down to steal the Southern Confederacy, as 
a measure of economy. 

Mr. Vanwike, another conscience stricken 
sinner of the loyal party, said : *' That 
species of fraud which shocked the nation 
in 1861, has been increasing," and men 
begin to inquire how many shocks the na- 
tion could yet endure. They become anx- 
ious to know if that sacred precept which 
says, "thou shalt not steal," applies to 
governments, — fearing that we were in 
danger of losing ours, as one Ward lost 
his ducks. But in answer to all these in- 
quiries we are told it is disloyal to thus 
" tie the hands of the Government ;" well, 
I submit, to the certain prejudice of my 
loyalty, that a government, which, like ours, 
cannot keep its hands out of the people's 
pockets, ought to have them tied. 

Mr. Conway, an unconditional Republi- 
can supporter of the Administration " in 



its efforts/' offered for the adoption of the 
last Congress this proposition : 

" Resolved, That the Executive be, and 
he is further, requested, to enter into nego- 
tiations with the authorities of the Confed- 
erate States with reference to a cessation 
of hostilities, based on the following prop- 
sitions : 

" 1st. Recognition of the independence of 
the Confederate States ! " 

Has Mr. Vallandigham, has any Demo- 
crat, ever proposed such a monstrous prop- 
osition ? But Democrats are without " due 
process of law " imprisoned, deprived of 
their liberty ; Mr. Vallandigham, without 
the presentment of a grand jury against 
him, without a trial in his district before a 
jury, is by force and violence dragged be- 
fore a tribunal unknown to the law, insult- 
ed by a mock trial and driven among the 
enemy ; while Mr. Conway, the very loyal 
co-laborer of A. Lincoln, with other uncon- 
ditional Union men, are "marching on" 
saving the Union. At their Springfield 
mass meeting our loyal Republican friends 
"Resolved, that the strength of our Gov- 
ernment consists in the respect of the peo- 
ple for the laws and its constituted author- 
ities ;" and, further, that whoever destroys 
this respect, " is an enemy to republican 
liberty." Can constituted authorities, 
whose acts are thus characterized by fraud, 
violence and political partiality, secure the 
respect of the people? Who can respect 
constituted authorities who do not them- 
selves respect the constitutional guarantees 
which they have sworn to respect? Can 
laws made, as Mr. Stephens declared the 
law dividing the State of Virginia was 
made, without warrant in the Constitution, 
secure the respect of the people, when 
they have declared in that instrument that 
no law shall be made without warrant 
therein? Can constituted authorities sworn 
not to violate those provisions of the Con- 
stitution, which were violated in the arrest 
by violence, the mock trial and fraudulent 
conviction of Mr. Vallandigham, secure the 
respect of the people ? Will the people re- 
spect constituted authorities who, sworn 
not to abridge the freedom of the press and 
speech, prevent this freedom, unless it is 
exercised in lauding the infamies of this 



Administration? Mr. Chase flippantly de- 
clares, " commerce follows the flag," and 
then by a dash of the pen does for Western 
commerce what five hundred thousand 
Southern bayonets could not do; he block- 
ades the river against it. 

Suppose that one of you having read 
from Mr. Chase's bulletin, " commerce fol- 
lows the flag," and then from Mr. Lincoln's 
bulletin, the "'Father of Waters' again 
goes unvexed to the sea," shall attempt to 
ship the products of your fields, and for 
that purpose shall visit a constituted au- 
thority in St. Louis, he will charge you five 
per cent, on the value for the privilege ; 
suppose that, not satisfied with the arrange- 
ment, you shall remind him that the consti- 
tuted authorities in New York and Boston 
do not charge this five per cent. ; and sup- 
pose, to convince him that he should not, 
you read from the Constitution, " no pref- 
erence shall be given by any regulation of 
commerce or revenue to the ports of Etfqr cH- 
State over those of another," what answer 
do you think the constituted authority 
would give you? "Copperhead!" How 
much respect would you still have for that 
constituted authoiity? We, who so often 
welcome to our national hospitalities those 
forced to flee their homes and native land, 
have not done so, I trust, because these 
refugees have overturned social order, pro- 
ducing riot and bloodshed, but because 
they have resisted bad laws, bad rulers, 
bad administrations of government. May 
we not learn, then, in this manifestation of 
the sentiments of a free people that laws 
and constituted authorities will receive the 
respect of the people in whatever degree 
the people shall feel that these laws and 
constituted authorities secure the ends, the 
liberties and equal rights of the citizen, the 
only legitimate purpose for which laws are 
enacted, authorities constituted. Those 
who have destroyed this feeling of security 
by overriding the people's will, and strik- 
ing down legal safeguards, without which 
there is no security, are the enemies of re- 
publican liberty. We must and will obey 
the laws made by the tribunals authorized 
to make laws ; we must respect constituted 
authorities in the performance of their le- 



gal duties — 7iot in their violations of law. 
Freemen trust only in the law for the secu- 
rity of their liberties. 

How can you discharge the duties of cit- 
izens under our system of government 
•without this freedom of the press and 
speech? How, without this, are you to 
ascertain whether I, or any other of your 
accredited agents, shall faithfully perform 
the trust you have confided to me or them? 
How shall you be informed of the proper 
persons to select and to entrust as your 
representatives and agents? What protec- 
tion for your rights and liberties have you 
if you are denied this due process of law, 
and public trial by jury ? Are you not al- 
ready condemned before you are arrested, 
condemned by the same accusation through 
which you are arrested ? At your mass 
meeting, that truly eloquent man, Hon. 
James C. Allen, told you that the ballot 
"box was the last citadel of your liberties 
■which you dare not surrender; that if its 
freedom was violated, it would be your du- 
ty to open the way to it with bayonets. 
Brave words, but they contain not half 
your duty. The freedom of the press, and 
the freedom of speech, which was stricken 
down in the illegal arrest of Mr. Vallan- 
digham for its exercise, are the pickets and 
o:itposts to this citadel of your liberties. 
Latth^se be capturtd, and the enemy will 
CJme upon you like a thiif in the night. 

My friends, if in the changing fortunes 
of war, your city, your homes, shall be 
threatened by the armed foe, and you too 
shall have to take arms in self-defence, will 
you then quieth" rest upon your arms in 
Edwardsville while the enemy approaches 
and captures your outposts, your surround- 
ing vilhxges, cuts off your communications 
with your friends, your means of supply 
and escape, leaving you at his mercy ? I 
trust not ; but if you did, you would be as 
competent to protect your homes as is a 
people to protect their liberties who rest in 
security while the press and speech are be- 
ing stricken down and hope to save their 
liberties at the ballot box. Every illegal, 
unwarranted encroachment upon the rights 
of citizens, to which they submit, is upon 
their part an act of self-abasement, and ed- 



ucates them for despotism. Only make 
ready for them your Mexico, and you will 
find your Napoleon and Maximillian ; nor 
need you go to France or Austria to look 
for them. How long will men, who through 
fear suffer the law to be broken, maintain 
their rights against the law-breakers ? We 
have no security but in the majesty of the 
law. When we shall have failed to obtain 
our rights at the hands of Mr. Lincoln, as 
President of the United States, think you 
we will obtain them from Mr. Lincoln, the 
leader of the Republican party? Mr. Val- 
landigham stands like a bantam cock, crow- 
ing across the Canada line; if the people of 
Ohio are capable of protecting their liber- 
ties, they will see to it, that he goes home 
and has the rights which by the law are 
his. If he is a traitor, let him suifer the 
penalties of treason. If I was an Ohioan 
as I am an Illinoisan, I would share the 
responsibility of vindicating the rights 
without which liberty means nothing. 

Constitutional Power to Suppress Rebellion. 

In their anxiety to have other people 
seem as regardless of constitutional obli- 
gations as themselves, the Administration 
send wandering heroes through the country 
to harangue the people into the belief that 
it is constitutional to suppress rebellion! 
The heroes having exercised themselves 
for a short time in asserting what no one 
denies, they cease to " shell the woods," 
and " move upon our works," by insisting 
that because it is constitutional to suppress 
rebellion, it is constitutional to do any 
other act which their chief shall direct, 
provided only he call it saving the Union. 
It does not follow that because we may 
lawfully suppress insurrection, it is there- 
fore lawful to make a raid upon the inhab- 
itants of the moon. When the Constitution 
provides that one thing may, another may 
not be done, it is violated if both be done. 
Suppose that, by it, Mr. Lincoln is author- 
ized — which is not conceded — to suspend 
the writ of habeas corpus when in time of 
rebellion he may think the public safety 
requires it. It does not follow that because 
a rebellion exists which it is lawful to sup- 
press, he can therefore cause to be judged 



10 



and condemned persons charged with crime, 
and yet deny to them due process of law 
and trial by impartial jury in the district 
where the crime is committed, which the 
Constitution says shall 7iot be denied ; and 
in it no provision is made for the suspen- 
sion of these rights. If his will is supreme 
law, the old man may take it into his head 
that the public safety requires the suspen- 
sion of elections for President for the re- 
mainder of his natural life. If the public 
safety is to be attained in that way, that 
too will be called saving the Union. Nor 
will he fail to find men to support him in 
his " efforts." But we are asked why we 
do not complain of the illegal abuses com- 
mitted by Jeff. Davis. That arch-traitor 
proclaims his purpose to destroy the Union. 
We would save it. His purpose is accom- 
plished by overthrowing the Constitution; 
ours cannot be attained in the same way. 

" War Democracy.^' 

Those apparently most in earnest in as- 
serting the constitutional right to suppress 
rebellion — a right which no party denies — 
are the party which recently met at Deca- 
tur. Not yet fully up to the requirements 
of " military necessity," these white-black- 
birds — Albino allies of the Administra- 
tion — are put in the "awkward squad" 
placed under the command of the late Abo- 
lition candidate for Congress in the State 
at large, and christened "War Democra- 
cy." Representing a party — themselves — 
the squad passed resolutions finding much 
fault with Democrats, none with Republi- 
cans. Democrats do not usually hold con- 
ventions to find fault with other Demo- 
crats, but meet and counsel with them. 
But no one will fail to understand this spe- 
cies of war Democracy. There are but 
two parties ; he who is not for the Demo- 
cratic party, the Constitution, Union and 
laws, is for military necessity — the filthy 
covering with which stealthy power at- 
tempts to hide its aggressions. These 
(two dozen it is said) civic and military 
gentlemen resolved that "wo" denounce 
the Democratic party of Illinois. Well, 
that denouncing is much like one of these 
game gentlemen sending me to take Fort 



Donelson with two regiments. Quite likely 
the Democracy will be denounced as I took 
the fort — not much. But this is not all 
the "war Democracy" at Decatur resolved 
to do : they resolved to build a railroad to 
the Pacific, a ship canal from the lakes to the 
Mississippi ; drive the French out of Mexico, 
because the old world was large enough, 
and must cease to grow any more in this 
direction ; to colonize four millions of ne- 
groes, and to suppress the rebellion. This 
"war Democracy" certainly should have 
given Mr. Hoe, of printing press notoriety, 
some encouragement; they ought to have 
resolved for the largest liberty of the press, 
for if all the presses in Christendom were 
set to work and each made impressions as 
large as Madison county, they would not 
print greenbacks enough before the mil- 
lenium to pay the cost of what is to be 
done by this two dozen " war Democracy." 

The 23d Resolution — Offensive War, 
In the exercise of the right *' peaceably 
to assemble and to petition the Govern- 
ment for a redress of grievances," which 
right, in order to secure the blessings of 
liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, 
our fathers declared should never be 
abridged, the Democracy of our State 
met in June last and 

"Resolved, That the further offensive 
prosecution of this war tends to subvert the 
Constitution and the Government, and en- 
tail upon this nation all the disastrous con- 
sequences of misrule and anarchy ; that we 
are in favor of peace upon the basis of a 
restoration of the Union, and for the ac- 
complishment of which we propose a Na- 
tional Convention to settle upon terms of 
peace, which shall have in view the restor- 
ation of the Union as it was, and the se- 
curing, by constitutional amendments, such 
rights to the several States and the people 
thereof as honor and justice demands.'^ 
Which has thrown all those who "support 
the Government in its efforts" to keep 
the offices off the Rebels on the " Copper- 
heads." The resolution is for peace on 
the basis of a preserved Union ; for a Na- 
tional Convention to settle upon terms hon- 
orable and just, and, if necessary to this 
end, to amend the Constitution, and 
against the offensive prosecution of the 
war. Have we not always claimed that 



11 



the war was, on our part, to save the Union 
and for no other purpose? If this is true, 
has any Union man sk^igiitrto urge against 
peace on the basis of a preserved Union ? 
In his last message the President recom- 
mended amendments to the Constitution 
to secure the freedom of the slaves in Mis- 
souri. If it is patriotic to amend it for the 
negroes, is it less patriotic to do the same 
thing for the Union? or is the mainte- 
nance of the Union of less moment than 
the freedom of these Africans, vrith whom 
we have no lawful right to interfere ? 
Among his first official acts, Mr. Lincoln 
recommended a National Convention to 
amend the Constitution. Then, certainly 
these most loyal of men are not going to 
abandon the ''Government's" own propo- 
sition for fear of being called Copperheads. 
Forgetting these propositions of their chief 
in their enthusiasm, his Albino allies at 
Decatur said: "nor do we believe it just, 
wise or honorable to call a convention 
during the present rebellion for the pur- 
pose of amending the Constitution. Only 
think of this " awkward squad " telling 
their commander-in-chief that his own 
propositions are neither "wise," "just," 
nor "honorable!" In the State of New 
York, with greater consideration for the 
acts of their loyal head, his followers re- 
solved to permit no amendments to the 
Constitution, except as provided by itself. 
We propose none other. Our fathers once 
amended the Constitution, engrafting no 
new principles, but better securing the 
rights it was made to secure. They pro- 
vided that we too might do likewise if it 
became necessary to accomplish the pur- 
poses of its adoption. When our fathers 
rebelled against British rule, they were 
told that they, like other British subjects, 
had the British Constitution. They were 
not satisfied with this information, but de- 
manded to know whether, having that 
Constitution, power was claimed to tax 
them without representation. They rebel- 
led, not against the British Constitution, 
but the British interpretation of it. The 
great majority of the Southern people be- 
lieve they are rebelling against an intended 
unlawful Republican interpretation of our 



Constitution, with which that party had 
threatened them. We are willing to amend 
the Constitution to prevent the execution 
of these unlawful threats ; and thus save 
both the Union and Constitution. But 
that which in this resolution has caused 
most uneasiness to the loyal phalanx of 
office keepers and money savers, is our op- 
position to the offensive prosecution of the 
war. After the war began, all parties in 
Congress voted for Mr. Crittenden's resolu- 
tion, declaring " that the present deplora- 
ble civil war has been forced upon the 
country by the disunionists of the Southern 
States 5 * * * that this war is not waged 
upon our part in any spirit of oppression, 
or for any purpose of conquest or subjuga- 
tion, or for the purpose of overthrowing or 
of interfering with the rights and estab- 
lished institutions of those States; but to 
defend and maintain the supremacy of the 
Constitution, and to preserve the Union, 
with all the dignity, equality, and rights of 
the several States unimpaired." * * * 
This was approved by the people. Under 
their obligations of office Owen Lovejoy, 0. 
L. Vallandigham, Gen. John A. McCler- 
nand, and Gen. John A. Logan, voted for it. 
A war thus forced upon us, in which we were 
compelled to defend the Union, Constitu- 
tion and laws, was a war in self-defence — 
defensive, not offensive. 

Fort Sumter is the property of the United 
States. When it was attacked by armed 
traitors, we in defending it were defending 
our own property ; our own rights — not 
prosecuting an offensive war. The Con- 
stitution of the United States provides for 
the suppression of insurrection — rebellion 
— by force of arms, and for that lawful 
purpose the territory of Tennessee or any 
other State is the territory of the people of 
the United States, and may be occupied by 
them to "defend and maintain the su- 
premacy of the Constitution and to pre- 
serve the Union, with all the dignity, rights 
and equality of States unimpaired," in 
self-defence, and they do not thereby pros- 
ecute an offensive war. In such a war, for 
a lawful purpose, did our men go forth to 
do battle ; such a war we were willing to 
j prosecute to the last extremity. Demo- 



12 



crats gave freely their votes, resources, 
their lives, in its prosecution. We would 
give them to-day as freely as when we 
were falsely and fraudulently told by Mr. 
Lincoln and his party that only in defence 
of these were our sacrifices required. 

If, however, we occupy any of these States 
to do what we have no "lawful right to 
do," we are then invading these States; 
we are then making the war offensive on 
our part, violating the Constitution, and 
producing anarchy, by prosecuting the war 
"in a spirit of oppression," for the pur- 
pose of overthrowing and interfering with 
the rights and established institutions of 
these States." We were against such a 
warfare in the beginning; Mr. Lincoln and 
his party solemnly pledged themselves 
against it. They have falsified their pledg- 
es, and are now for it. Gen. Logan, Gen. 
McClernand and Owen Lovejoy, with Mr. 
Vallandigham, under their official oaths, 
declared themselves against it. We are 
against it now and forever. Mr. Douglas 
was against it. In his Springfield speech, 
which forever canonized him in the hearts 
of thb abolition Republican people — after 
he was dead — he not only said : "there can 
be but two parties, patriots and traitors;" 
but he said : 

"I will never sanction nor acquiesce in 
any warfare whatever upon the Constitu- 
tional rights or domestic institutions of 
the people of the Southern States. On the 
contrary, if there was an attempt to invade 
those rights, to stir up servile insurrection 
among their people, I would rush to their 
rescue, and interpose with whatever strength 
I might possess, to defend them from such 
calamity." 

And again, he said : 

" Hence, I repeat that I am not prepared 
to take up arms, or to sanction a policy of 
our Government to take up arms, to make 
any inroads against the rights of the South- 
ern States; upon their domestic institu- 
tions ; upon the rights of person or prop- 
erty; but, on the contrary, loould fly to 
their defence and protect them from assault; 
but while that is the case, I will never cease 
to urcre my countrymen to take up arms and 
fight to the death in defence of our inde- 
feasible rights. Hence, if a war does come, 
it is a war of self-defence on our part." 

Here, then, is the testimony of that man 
of great mind, who became the idol of our 



very loyal opponents too late for the coun- J 
try's honor and the country's good. Tint r/ 
a war in defence of our indefeasible rights 
was a war in self-defence wherever it might 
be waged. He tells us that he would never 
cease to urge his countrymen to fight in 
such a war to the death. But he tells us 
that he would sanction no warfare upon the* 
"domestic institutions of the Southern 
States ;" that if there was an attempt to in- 
vade these rights, or to stir up servile insur- 
rection among the people, he would fly to 
their rescue; that if the Government made 
anyinroads upon the rights of personorprop- 
erty he would fly to their defence. He, then, 
did not regard inroads upon their rights of 
person or property warfare upon their do- 
mestic institutions, or stirring up servile 
insurrection among the Southern people, as 
our indefeasible rights, which we could 
everywhere secure by war in self-defence. 
He regarded these acts as offensive, this 
warfare so offensive, that he would rush to 
the rescue, fly to the defence of the South- 
ern people if it was attempted. Have the 
negroes of the South not been told that they 
are free and may rightfully assert their 
freedom at the expense of the lives of their 
masters, and is that not what Mr. Douglas 
meant by an attempt to stir up servile in- 
surrection? "There can be but two par- 
ties " to that stirring up ; which did Mr. 
Douglas tell us he would "rescue?" The 
slaves of Mr. Douglas' children have been 
proclaimed free by the Commander-in-chief, 
who says the proclamation "is law and 
valid, or is not valid." But no matter 
whether valid or invalid, seven hundred 
thousand bayonets make it valid. "There 
can be but two parties" to this "inroad" 
on the right of property of Mr, Douglas' 
children ; of which did he tell us he would 
" fly to their defence ?" 

For saying upon another occasion what I 
have now said in substance, a paper pub- 
lished here — the Advertiser — makes me say: 

"A war of invasion is not an offensive war 
if it is carried on in upholding the rights of 
the invaders." 

Those entitled to be believed say that I 
am indebted for the honor of this notice to 
Judge "Joe" Gillespie, who is a very re- 



13 



spectable, because a very old man. He 
knows the law, because he is a Judge. He 
is a war man, over forty-five years of age. 
He, in this newspaper article, attempts to 
play fool that he may not seem a knave. 
1 did not say " a war of invasion is not an 
offensive war if it is carried on in uphold- 
ing the rights of the invaders," nor anything 
that a man having any respect for the truth 
can so interpret. I said substantially, and 
Bay now, that a war to maintain the su- 
premacy of the Constitution and to pre- 
serve the Union, or to do any other act au- 
thorized by the Constitution, is not a war 
of invasion, not an offensive war, though it 
be prosecuted in every State in the Union ; 
that, for the attainment of these ends, the 
territory of any and every State belongs to 
us, the whole people, and may be thus oc- 
cupied by us in self-defence. 

When John Morgan and his followers 
made their raid into Ohio they invaded that 
State, and made offensive war on the citi- 
zens of Ohio and of the United States. 
When our army went into that State to pro- 
tect it against invasion, we did not invade 
it, nor were we prosecuting an offensive 
war. And why was Morgan's occupation 
of that State offensive and an invasion 
while ours was not? Because he occupied 
that State in violation of the Constitution, 
in violation of law; we, in obedience to 
both. The territory of Ohio is the terri- 
tory of the United States for the purpose 
which we occupied it ; it is not the terri- 
tory of John Morgan's band for the pur- 
poses which they sought to occupy it. Nor 
Is the law and the right changed if we go to 
Virginia rather than Ohio ; nor whether 
his followers or our army might have been 
composed of citizens of a Northern or 
Southern State. Nor can we change the 
law or the right by declaring a purpose to 
do a lawful act, if we do an unlawful one 
instead. John Morgan's army went to Ohio 
to violate law; to do what they had no 
lawful right to do. In doing so they pros- 
ecuted an offensive war, and invaded that 
State. If we go to Georgia with our army 
to violate law, to do what we have no law- 
ful right to do, we invade that State; we 
prosecute an offensive war though we may 



call it saving, the Union. Whoever believes 
that when our army enters upon the terri- 
tory of a Southern State it thereby in- 
vades such State and prosecutes an of- 
ensive war is a Secessionist, whether ho 
be Judge, knave or fool, because the 4th 
Art., 4ch Sec. of the Constitution says: 
" The United States shall protect each of 
them (the States) against invasion;" hence, 
we may not invade a State. Once admit, 
as this learned Judge does, that the enter- 
ing of a Southern State by our army is an 
invasion and an offensive war, and we are at 
the mercy of evil-doers, without the Con- 
stitutional power to suppress rebellion. 
But the Judge thinks "Vattel and other 
stupid fellows, who have been writing on 
military affairs for ages, might have saved 
themselves a great deal of trouble, if they 
had, like our friend, Bill Morrison, ignored 
the distinction between war carried on in 
an enemy's country and those carried on 
at home." 

Herein we may learn the difference be- 
tween us and our opponents, as well as the 
different purposes for which we were will- 
ing to prosecute a war. For every legiti- 
mate purpose sought to be attained by the 
prosecution of this war, there is no " ene- 
my's country," it is all "home." South 
Carolina is our country. What right have 
we to waste blood and treasure in fighting 
for it if it is not our country ? All of the 
Southern States are our country. By the 
Constitution they are made a part of the 
more perfect Union. How have they be- 
come the enemy's country? Are these 
Union judges at last turned secessionists ; 
and do they admit the validity of the acts 
of secession? How else can it be that these 
States, which were part of our country, are 
no longer so? The judge must learn to 
look upon this whole country as ours. 
South as well as North; then he may com- 
prehend the distinction between offensive 
and defensive warfare. Our views of duty 
to the country did never accord in time of 
war. While I was in Mexico, doing the 
best I could in defending the honor of our 
flag, at seven dollars per month, he and 
other "heirs of the aspirations of John 
Brown," were encouraging the Mexicans to 



u 



welcome me with '^bloody hands and hos- 
pitable graves." When but a twelve months 
ago I was down in what he calls the enemy's 
country, but what I call our own country, 
doing the best 1 could to ward off the blows 
that treason would inflict upon it, he was 
saving the Union "in these ends of the 
earth" by doubting my loyalty, and that of 
all men who refused to vote the Republican 
ticket. 

This resolution was adopted as a substi- 
tute for one offered by General Singleton, 
declaring the war unconstitutional in the 
beginning, declaring substantially of this 
what Mr. Lincoln did of the Mexican war. 
The terribly loyal men think the General a 
traitor; men are not traitors while they 
obey all the laws of the country, and per- 
form every duty required of the citizen. 
If men will but obey the laws, I can toler- 
ate some freedom of thought ; why cannot 
the Administration and its allies tolerate 
Buch freedom ; are the laws not of their 
own making? When a man says: if I 
made your laws, I would make no war in 
what I believe to be a fruitless attempt to 
cement the Union by blood, but you who 
are legally chosen to make laws, have made 
them for war; I, as a loyal citizen, do and 
will obey them ; I can understand him, and 
believe he will obey the laws. How can 
such a man be a traitor, unless Mr. Lincoln 
was one during the Mexican war? If he 
was, we have a precedent for compromising 
with traitors. 

Conciliation and Compromise. 
With impotent, but malignant rage, those 
who believe as General Jackson, Mr. Jef- 
ferson, and other great men, of other and 
better days, believed, that this Union is not 
to be maintained by force alone, are de- 
nounced as "Coppei-huads," "rebel sym- 
pathizers," and " traitors," for presuming 
to think of compromising with " traitors." 
Well, I would compromise with traitors 
to save this Union. Mr. Douglas, whose 
patriotism, now that he is dead, is endors- 
ed by all those who are so terrified by the 
word compromise, offered to compromise 
with these men threatening to become 
traitors, and he said, " the South (these 



traitors) would take my proposition, but 
the Republicans will not agree to it." 
That great man, with the promptings of a 
pure patriotism, to prevent war, offered 
terms of conciliation to men threatening to 
commit treason. He believed the Republi- 
cans ought to acceed to such terms to pre- 
vent war. We believed so then, we still 
believe they ought to acceed to these terms 
of conciliation, to secure peace on the ba- 
sis of a preserved Union. In his inaugural 
address Mr. Lincoln said : 

" Suppose you go to war ; you cannot 
fight always; and when, after much loss on 
both sides, and no gain on either, you 
cease fighting, the identical questions as to 
terms of intercourse are again upon you. 
This country, with its institutions, belongs 
to the people who inhabit it. Whenever 
they grow weary of the existing govern- 
ment, they can exercise their constitutional 
right in amending it, or their revolution- 
ary right to dismember and overthrow it." 

Since Mr. Lincoln thinks we cannot fight 
always, and that when we cease fighting 
these questions in dispute will be still un- 
settled, we propose to allow the people who 
inhabit the country, and to whom Mr. Lin- 
coln says it belongs the exercise of — "not 
their revolutionary right to dismember and 
overthrow it" — "but their constitutional 
right in amending it," " the existing gov- 
ernment," as provided by itself, and thus 
settle their difiiculties. We have had the 
" much loss on both sides," and " no gain," 
at least on theirs; they are convinced that 
they cannot whip five Illinois Yankees ; we 
do not want the cost, in the blood of brave 
men, of convincing them any more thor- 
oughly if it can be avoided by honorable 
compromise — and what sacrilegious aboli- 
tion fanatic will say that Crittenden and 
Douglas offered compromises which were 
inconsistent with their country's honor ? 
Then in view of the dangers still threaten- 
ing the country, and the cost in valuable 
life and treasure yet to be expended in re- 
moving these dangers — in view of all the 
facts, is it disloyal, is it against the Union, 
the Government, is it against the soldiers 
or the cause in which they believe they 
are fighting, to offer terms of compromise, 
to permit the people, to whom Mr. Lincoln 



15 



says the country belongs, to settle their 
difficulties as to terms of intercourse, which 
he says will have to be settled by them 
whenever, and however, the war may ter- 
minjite ? What more do these best Union 
men want than a settlement — than peace — 
with the Union preserved, and the Govern- 
ment maintained in its integrity ? Were 
they not in good faith when they induced 
men to go to war in defence of these, de- 
claring they had no purposes of oppression 
or of mimrtgmg^ with the established insti- 
tutions of the States ? What more do these 
best friends of the soldiers want than 
peace with a whole Union ? Have they not 
war enough ? Do they want more widows, 
more orphans, more gallant men torn and 
mangled? do they still cry for blood? Do 
these men fighting for peace tell us that 
the rebels will accept no terms but a recog- 
nition of their independence ? how do they 
know ? Mr. Douglas told us the South 
would have taken his proposition and thus 
avoided war, if these men who want to con- 
tinue fighting for peace would have agreed 
to it. If the South would have taken such 
a proposition, then why will they not take 
it now ? is war any more inviting to them 
after their three years of terrible experi- 
ence ? But the " Government," say thev, 
" makes no ofi'ers of peace." Is that not 
because they can expect nothing but confis- 
cation and emancipation, to obtain peace 
from an Administration which refused all 
terms of compromise offered to prevent 
war? In what better condition do the Union 
saving offerings proposed by the Adminis- 
tration leave the rebels, if they submit, 
than if they contend ? If they submit, 
they lose their lives and property ; thev 
lose no more if they contend. 

The President's Lincoln-letter to his 
Springfield friends says, in justification of 
his negro proclamation, that "negroes, like 
other people, act upon motive ; that he 
promised them freedom to get them to 
stake their lives for us ; and the promise 
being made, must be kept." Well, if he 
keeps that promise with the negroes, he will 
act in better faith than he has with white 
men. But, if the President earnestly desires 
to save the Union, — since he has discovejed 



that not only negroes, but " other people'* 
act from motive, — will he not furnish a 
" motive" to the Southern people to cease 
fighting ? Will he not cease to prolong thia 
terrible struggle, and makepeace ji*>^ to the 
rebels less dangerous than wary- What, 
think you, would be the efi'ect upon the 
Southern people if an offer, in good faith 
of protection to life and property, with such 
guaranties for the future as were offered 
them by the patriots Crittenden and Doug- 
las? Think you they would not take it? 
Are the men of the South so different from 
other men that their reverses and disap- 
pointments, the pain, suffering and death 
that they are working out for themselves, 
have no efi'ect upon them? I think not. I 
know a little of some of these things im- 
proved my accommodating disposition very 
much. But those who would consent to no 
compromise to prevent war, will have no 
compromise with "traitors" to secure 
peace. Have they not already compromised 
with them ? Hanging is the penalty for 
treason. In the canvass of 1860, in a ha- 
rangue which that old blood-letting patriot, 
Senator Chandler of Michigan, delivered at 
the village of my residence, he said to his 
followers: "Don't listen to these dough- 
faced Union savers; vote for freedom, and 
when we elect our men, let slave drivers 
secede if they dare. Secession will be trea- 
son, and they who commit treason we will 
hang. I say, if this Union is not strong 
enough to hang traitors, let this Union go 
to hell." Well, he who made this chaste 
senatorial declaration did not hang traitors, 
but the acts of himself and his party seem 
to indicate their acceptance of the other al- 
ternative. They compromised the hanging 
with traitors. In passing along the river, 
where these "traitors" that were all to be 
hanged are being sent North, you can see, 
if you take that trouble. General, Colonel 
and Captain traitor, and General, Colonel 
and Captain Union travelling together in 
the cabin, compromising so as to take their 
toddies together; and the poor Southern 
soldier, (traitor,) who, by these very toddy- 
taking fellows, has been forced to commit 
treason, is travelling on deck, feasting on 
hard crackers. All traitors are equal be- 



16 



fore the law, whether they be called Gene- 
ral or simply Joe Johnson ; but we have so 
far compromised as to recognize these dis- 
tinctions. Why, if a "traitor" is called 
General Joseph Johnson, we got forty-six 
men in exchange for him ; if he is called 
simply Joe Johnson, we get but one. In 
fact, this thing has two sides to it ; we man- 
age but one, and that is terribly botched. 
We have made all the compromises with 
traitors necessary to a most bloody war. Is 
it not as honorable to compromise with the 
same men, traitors thought they be, to ob- 
tain peace ? 

But these unconditional Union men 
won't compromise with Jeff. Davis; they 
won't have the Union unless his head is un- 
conditionally cut off. Well, we have no ob- 
jection to taking his head off if it don't 
cost too much ; though it's a pity we could 
not save the contents. Suppose his head 
ought to come off: will Senator Sumner, 
Chandler, or Mr. Secretary Chase any soon- 
er give their heads for his than will Gov. 
Seymour, Vallandigham or Story of the 
Chicago Times ? No ! Admit that his head 
ought to come off: will Mr. Lincoln give 
Lis head for Jeff's ? No ! Then, why shall 
we give another fifty thousand lllinoisans 
for it, even with the prospect of having a 
few hundred thousand negroes added to 
the unconditional Union-coveted trophy. I 
do not believe, with Mr. Vallandigham, 
that we "cannot conquer the South," un- 
less he means that we cannot maintain the 
Union by force alune. Whether we will 
conquer the South or not, is another ques- 
tion. With Africa for an ally we might 
conquer the rebels, England and France, 
and the other nations of the earth ; but it 
would doubtless cost us many good men, 
which we would save to the country. And 
when we have done this, we have yet no 
Union, for, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, 
" the identical questions as to terms of in- 
tercourse are again upon you." When we 
have given man for man until there is but 
one man left in the South, and when we 
have torn one limb from his body, we will 
have many of our own men like him, who, 
if we are men, we must care for, and still 
we will have no Union 3 for, when, to pro- 



vide for our poor wooden-legged men, we 
tax him with the wooden-leg in the South, 
there will be a rattling of the dry bones, 
and, in the words of Mr. Lincoln, " the 
identical questions as to terms of inter- 
course are again upon you," — if you will 
allow me to perpetrate a Licolnism, no un- 
accomplished thing is yet accomplished ! 

The Union is not yet saved. Look you 
to Mexico, but yesterday a Republic — to- 
day a military despotism ! How long be- 
fore we, too, may be involved in foreign 
complications. If Jeff. Davis and his 
prime-ministers of treason, are the ambi- / 
tious fe^d:» of a privileged aristocracy,'' l4. 
which they are represented to be, think 
you they will suffer emancipation, confis- 
cation and the halter rather than seek 
foreign protection ? When they shall be 
reduced to the alternative of accepting at 
our hands those very loyal Union-saving 
offerings, or at the hands of Louis Napo- 
leon, such a government as his protection 
may offer, and in which these traitors shall 
not only keep their lives and property, but 
shall be the favored lords, which do you 
think they will take ? Which would the 
unconditional Union men take in such an 
alternative ? Such an alternative we would 
avoid. 

But Mr. Lincoln tells us in his Lincoln 
Springfield letter, " that no compromise 
embracing the maintenance of the Union 
is possible, because their army "dominates" 
over all the Southern people ; that any 
compromise made wiih the Southern peo- 
ple would be "nothing," because they have 
no power to enforce their side of it," and 
then he asks "how such a compromise 
can keep Lee's army out of Pennsylva- 
nia?" And has the author of this knave- 
ry so soon forgotten Chicago and the 4th 
of June V Their army dominates over the 
Southern people only because Mr. Lin- 
coln and his party made threats against 
slavery, and refused to the Southern peo- 
ple guarantees that they would not execute 
these threats, when guarantees were, before 
the war, demanded; and because they did 
attempt by the emancipation proclamation to 
execute these threats as soon as a pretext 
was given them. Let Mr. Lincoln and his 



17 



Cabinet for a time forget the Republican 
party, and for once rise to the dignity of 
patriots. Let them reassure the Southern 
people, and the Southern people will not 
only compromise, but they will " enforce 
their side of it ;" they will keep Lee's 
army out of Pennsylvania as did a few 
thousand men, who know their rights and 
have the manliness to assert them, keep 
Mr. Lincoln from the execution of his foul 
purpose, when he attempted to strike 
down the liberty of the press, in the sup- 
pression of the Chicago Times. 

The Soldiers. 

Not satisfied with prolonging the san- 
guinary struggle, and adding "with no 
lawful right to do so," to the already too 
great burthens of our citizen soldiery, the 
Union (with the spoils) men are preparing 
to use the men they have so wronged to 
continue the spoils-men in office. Hence, 
it is that we are by our opponents at all 
times misrepresented as wanting in sym- 
pathy for the men who by perilling their 
lives have enabled others to remain in the 
enjoyment of their homes. 

When did our citizens, of any political 
party, assemble together and neglect to ex- 
press, in fitting terms, their gratitude to, 
their sympathy for, Illinois soldiers, or 
fail suitably to commend their sacrifices 
and devotion to the cause of the country, 
and in honor of our own State? Does any 
one of you know of such an occasion ? 
Have not all parties, at all times, expressed 
a readiness, in the words of that not yet 
demoralized Democrat of Ohio, Mr. Cox, 
"to sustain our army in the field while a 
rebel army contests our authority on a foot 
of our soil?" Who does not respect and 
honor the true and manly soldier ? Who is 
his friend, the Republican that votes him 
thanks, ortheDemocratwhovotes thanks and 
gives money that his wounds may be healed ? 
we, who would save him to his family. State 
and country; or his unconditional admirer, 
who would waste that life-blood so nobly 
offered in defence of the integrity, rights 
and honor of the country, in illegal schemes 
and double purposes not contemplated in 
the terms of enlistment ? It was not un- 



derstood by Illinoisans, when they enlisted 
to maintain the lawful authority of the 
Government, that they would be required to 
do what Mr. Lincoln had told them it was 
unlawful to do. Do you think that w^hen 
they enlisted they contemplated a time when 
their shattered and broken columns should 
be reinforced by the poor debased African ? 
Why should we withhold our sympathy 
from these gallant men ? The misdeeds of 
the Administration are not those of the sol- 
dier any more than they are the misdeeds 
of you who remain at home an 1 furnish the 
treasure, while the soldiers oiijr their lives 
in the prosecution of the war. Who, of any 
political party, does not, in his heart of 
hearts, honor that brave old hero. General 
Grant, — not a Napoleon, but greater than 
Napoleon, an earnest, honest man ? and 
that, as true soldier and still greater man, 
Gen. John A. Rawlings,_who can be a Gene- 
ral and yet not "make a speech" or write 
a letter. And the brave and true men of 
any and every political faith, whether they 
command or fill the ranks of Illinois' glo- 
rious column, who have gone forth in good 
faith, who know their duty and perform it 
like men; do we not honor them all alike? 
nor yet all alike perhaps. If there be po- 
liticCr^lnilitary hucksters among them, who 
trade their political opinions for place and 
power, we honor them not so much, since 
they have their reward ; if not, they may 
get it when they have made good their con- 
tract to give the votes of Democratic sol- 
diers to the Republican party, it may be. 

But it is said the last Legislature, Dem- 
ocratic, refused to give to Governor Yates 
for the relief of the soldiers $50,000, and 
the previous Legislature, Republican, did 
give $50,000 for that purpose. Well, the 
State Treasurer, Mr. Starne, tells us, over 
his own signature, that the official reports 
show, that of this $50,000 appropriated by 
the Republican Legislature to be expended 
by Gov. Yates, the soldiers received $1,119 ; 
about the sum of $9,000 was expended in 
steamboat excursions, chargeable to the 
soldiers, while of the other $40,000 which 
the soldiers did not get, a fellow in the 
Governor's employ, with a red cravat and 
nose of the same color, received inore for 



18 



his expenses in a tour from Springfield to 
Cairo than a soldier receives for fighting 
rebels nine months. The same fellow is 
now in the Governor's service in the double 
capacity of private secretary and common 
calumniator through the columns of the 
Missouri Democrat and Chicago Tribune, 
in the columns of which the Governor's 
correspondent and private secretai'v, lately, 
with no regard for justice or truth, com- 
plained of my action in the distribution of 
the soldiers' relief fund. The appropria- 
tions necessary for the relief of our men 
were not made because of the bad faith, 
the unwarranted and illegal acts of the 
Governor and his party. Two weeks after 
that most terrible battle at Shiloh, the very 
loyal press — and the private secretary 
knows why — began with clamorous inde- 
cency to laud Gov. Yates for having al- 
ready brought to their homes the sick and 
wounded Illinois soldiers ; and yet, four 
weeks after that battle, between eight and 
nine hundred of them were languishing in 
the hospitals in sight of the field where 
they had so nobly vindicated the honor of 
Illinois and of the whole country. Some 
of them were sent to hospitals in other 
States. That noble man and true soldier, 
Lieut. Maguire of your county, was sent 
to Cincinnati, and died, thirty days after 
the battle, among strangers, with no friend 
or acquaintance to care for him. Yes, he 
died of his wounds, which Republican votes 
of thanks — all he could get from his uncon- 
ditional Union admirers — did not heal. 
These things, with two or three raids made 
by the Governor upon the army pending 
the election on the "new Constitution," 
had made the Democratic members of the 
Legislature believe that this trust ought 
not again to be confided to him. But his 
unconditional friends said : '^ The Governor 
so loved the soldiers that it became neces- 
sary to have a second baptism, the private 
secretary standing sponsor and performing 
the sacred office for "the soldiers' friend." 
He had given the soldiers $1,119 in sup 
plies, and §9,000 in steamboat excursions, 
out of the $50,000 appropriated for his ex 
penditure ; he had shown his respect for 
the soldiers' rights and opinions in de 



daring in his message that " every man 
who has a human heart within him " would 
receive and treat negroes kindly when they 
seek a refuge in Illinois, though the sol- 
diers did vote that these negroes should 
find no refuge "here." Therefore, said 
the Governor's friends, it was an indignity 
to offer a poor dying soldier relief except 
by the hand of "the soldiers' friend." 
The Democrats were of the opinion that, 
as the men who they proposed should dis- 
tribute their appropriations were unobjec- 
tionable, the Governor might forego his 
electioneering raids in 1864, and pocket — 
not the money, but the imaginary indig- 
nity, and be satisfied with the relief fur- 
nished those for devotion to whom it be- 
came necessary to have a second baptism ; 
but "the soldiers' friend" declined to 
pocket — not the money, but the supposed 
indignity, and in violation of his legal duty 
furnished a pretext for his more cowardly 
accomplices to break up the Legislature. 
A bill making the most ample provision 
for the relief of our disabled and sick men 
was passed by the House of Representa- 
tives early in the first session, and failed 
to become a law because of the Senate not 
concurring, twelve, all of the Democratic 
members, voting for, twelve Republicans 
voting against the measure. It contained 
no provision for "the soldiers' friend." 

Political Parties. 

My friends, it is the fashion of the time, 
especially with noisy patriots, lucky 
enough to get a shot which does not stop 
their talking, not to be politicians. If 
they are very devout christians, they 
"thank God" that they are not poli- 
ticians — for them, the sufferings, the 
imaginary wrongs of the soldiers, the star- 
spangled banner, and the bullet hole, are 
expected to do the rest. Whoever may, or 
•^m may not be politicians, there are po- 
litical parties in the country not less assid- 
uous in marshalling their respective hosts 
for the political conflict in 1864, the con- 
flict of constitutional liberty with military 
despotism. Thus are the respective armies 
intent in preparing for the continuing con- 
flict of arms : one, the party now in pow- 



19 



er, claiming all the love of country and of 
the brave men defending it, enjoying the 
patronage resulting from the annual dis- 
bursement of vast millions of money, exer- 
cising the power to create and bestow offi- 
ces at will. Doubtless they are somewhat 
desirous to continue their exclusive privi- 
lege of so loving the country more, and her 
soldiers better than other people — some- 
what anxious, too, to continue in giving 
away and keeping the offices, spending and 
saving the money. To support the Admin- 
istration in its efforts — the test of loyalty 
— to save this Union of the party in power, 
with these unlimited spoils, the eighth 
commandment, which constitutes no article 
in the code of military necet^sity, is by this 
class of Union savers wholly overlooked ; 
hence, they bear false witness against their 
neighbors, and represent us as against the 
Union, Government, country, and the men 
who give their lives in its defence. 

The other, the Democratie,_p:irty, claim 
that they^^f^l(i44"^H6{ffhT^v^^^^ 
fullness of -ife^^^andeur a nd,- '' lory, as our 
fathers left^^fttft desired4*^)'^main un- 
til the people, by their own wjU, in its law- 
ful exercise, should change iJflf^at they, 
and they alone, can justly appreciate the 
sacrifices, and will lawfully direct the pat- 
riotic efforts of our gallant army of patri- 
otK heroes, in the preservation of the 
Union as our fathers made it ; that they 
alone will prosecute war or maintain peace, 
without preying upon the resources of the 
people. Was it not mainly through the faith- 
ful guardianship of the Democratic party 
that this good Government was so long 
saved from all harm, and in its purity '? For 



four score years it buoyed up the hopes of 
civilization, commanded the admiration of 
mankind, astonished the world. Did any 
danger menace the country, the Union, the 
Government, until, in an evil hour, it had 
been determined to confide them to the 
keeping of the extra loyal opponents of the 
Democratic party ? All was Avell until, in 
a race with four millions of negroes on our 
backs, their masters firing at our rear, we 
broke down ; the Constitution went into 
the keeping of Mr. Lincoln, and those who 
support him in his " efforts ;" and if we 
may believe Mr. Hale, Chandler, Dawes, and 
Vanwike, like the man who went to Jeri- 
cho, it fell among thieves. AYe must res- 
cue and restore it to the keeping of those 
who have been faithful. Providence has 
an interest in, and might get along with 
the affairs of this Government without the 
intervention of the Democratic party ; but 
that experiment has been hazarded only 
with such success as might cause the an- 
gels to weep. The Democratic party must 
be restored to power — without it the Gov- 
ernment cannot be re-adjusted ; only 
through it can a war be prosecuted in no 
" spirit of oppression," and not for the 
purpose of " overthrowing or of interfering 
with the rights and established institu- 
tions of these States." It is the only par- 
ty which has not been false to its pledges 
to prosecute the war " to defend and main- 
tain the supremacy of the Constitution and 
to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, 
equality and rights of the several States 
unimpaired. No other party has capacity 
to make a successful Avar, or the virtue to 
make peace. 



U 



nireo 



♦ o 











,^ .,. 



. I* A 








• <^' 



V ♦• 



c'^" 







^^^9^' 

.V.^ 



is- 


^^ 


0^ 


,/', 


< 


°^ 










.-v^^ 






i4 








-i^' 
V^ ♦^ 



^^ ^?^^^ 












.0^ t' 






V\-ERT 
BOOKBINDINC 

Cun. ille. Pa 






